[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAO7JXPgf9ffVQ3n9iD8-1abuDSAZHWAZmz56BmM68uJZ7uy+Uw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2023 12:15:50 -0400
From: Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vineeth@...byteword.org>
To: luca abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
youssefesmat@...gle.com,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] sched/deadline: Fix bandwidth reclaim equation in GRUB
On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 11:58 AM Vineeth Remanan Pillai
<vineeth@...byteword.org> wrote:
>
> > > ...But I think this is wrong (should be "Umax - ...", not "1 - ...").
> > > I think patch 2/2 has the same issue.
> > >
> > Oops sorry, I missed this. Will send the fixed patch as a
> > reply to the original v4.
> >
> On looking again, I think the description is correct. That line
> mentions the actual m-GRUB equation from the paper. And then the
> comment explains why we use Umax(because of limiting the bandwidth
> to RT capacity).
>
Ahh my bad again :-(, I was looking at the commit message. I see the
issue in the code comment now.
I have just sent the fix as a reply to the initial patch. I shall send a
v5 if needed. Please let me know.
Thanks,
Vineeth
Powered by blists - more mailing lists